+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the late response, +1 > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hi, Guozhang, > > > > Thanks for the proposal. I made a pass of the wiki and had the following > > comments. > > > > 200. Message format: > > 200.1 MaxTimestampDelta: Does that need to be delta since it's always a > > fixed size in64? > > 200.2 The wiki says "At the end we still maintains a message-level CRC". > Is > > that still valid? > > 200.3 In the ProducerRequest, do we need messageSet size? > > 200.4 One of the things that we may want to add in the future is KIP-82 > > (per record header). It would be useful to think a bit how easy it is to > > support that with the new message format. > > > > > > 201. Configurations: > > 201.1 transaction.timeout.ms in the producer: It seems that it's missing > > in > > BeginTxnRequest? Also, what happens when the value is larger than > > max.transaction.timeout.ms on the broker? > > 201.2 For the internal transactional topic, do we need additional broker > > side configurations to control # of partitions, # of replicas, > compression > > codec, segment size like the offset topic? > > 201.3 isolation.level: It says the default is "all", but there is no > option > > for "all". > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > We would like to start the voting process for KIP-98. The KIP can be > > found > > > at > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > 98+-+Exactly+Once+Delivery+and+Transactional+Messaging > > > > > > Discussion thread can be found here: > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/Kafka/uyzND1jwZrr7HRHf?subj=+ > > > DISCUSS+KIP+98+Exactly+Once+Delivery+and+Transactional+Messaging > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > >
